Gerry and Jez chat while Jane walks by. Seconds later she spots Tannerman!

[Alice Purjorick]

Maybe that wasn't where the get away vehicle was parked.

Maybe that wasn't where he was living at the time.

The duration of the conversation was probably about three minutes ... time enough for an intruder to be in and out of the apartment.

How do we know Madeleine wasn't taken upstairs to Apartment 5j which was the route taken by the GNR dogs? Nothing like hiding in plain sight.

Which getaway vehicle would that be?
Now there's a possibility Ole Tannerman having been greased and all.
Did the woofers woof in 5J do we know?

[faithlilly]

I've never thought that was a pink blanket.  IMO it's 'fuzzy bit'  put in by the artist to denote that JT did not see that part of the child, rather than leave an empty space which would have looked really strange and abnormal.

The fact that no pink blanket has ever been claimed to have been seen by JT or the Smiths would seem to bear that out.

You really can't have it both ways Benice. Either Tanner saw the child as denoted in the mockumentary in which case she would have had to have seen at least part of the child's face and hair or she didn't see the top half at all, as drawn by Little, and therefore how could she have described the pyjama top ?

[sadie]

The 5D rear bedroom window was closed and its shutter was closed but it described in one of the relevant rogatories that human voice could easily be heard through them, before the door is opened, heard through closed window and closed shutter. 5D has same design windows and shutters as 5A.

Citation please Pegasus.

[sadie]

Has anyone tried carrying a child of Madeleine's age as Tanner describes without the head a top of the body being visible? It's not possible. Don't believe me ? Then watch the McCann's own mockumentary. The head and upper torso of the child being carried is visible. If Tanner could see the pyjama top she could also see the child's head.

What a vivid imagination you have Faith

Of course it is perfectly possible to carry a child as Jane describes.


Please do NOT FORGET that Jane was downhill to Tannerman .... so the bottom half of the little girls body would partially visually block the upper half.

[pegasus]

What a vivid imagination you have Faith

Of course it is perfectly possible to carry a child as Jane describes.


Please do NOT FORGET that Jane was downhill to Tannerman .... so the bottom half of the little girls body would partially visually block the upper half.

Sadie you and I may disagree on some details but we seem to agree very constructively that JT is a completely honest witness. Watching the video where this witness is in Rua Martins showing where the chat was, I have never seen a more straightforward and truthful witness, instantly trustable, no doubt whatsoever.

[sadie]

Sadie you and I may disagree on some details but we seem to agree very constructively that JT is a completely honest witness. Watching the video where this witness is in Rua Martins showing where the chat was, I have never seen a more straightforward and truthful witness, instantly trustable, no doubt whatsoever.

I agree Pegasus.  Despite her hesitant way of talking , Jane is totally straighforward and honest.
Thank you for your honesty


I could get on with you in real life, I think 

[pegasus]

I agree Pegasus.  Despite her hesitant way of talking , Jane is totally straighforward and honest.
Thank you for your honesty


I could get on with you in real life, I think 

GM was facing away from her, and the fact that JW did not notice her indicates that when she walked past he was probably looking at his child, so I think she genuinely did walk post the chat, accurate testimony.

[Benice]

You really can't have it both ways Benice. Either Tanner saw the child as denoted in the mockumentary in which case she would have had to have seen at least part of the child's face and hair or she didn't see the top half at all, as drawn by Little, and therefore how could she have described the pyjama top ?

I wasn't aware that she had described the pyjama top.  Could you clarify please Faith?

[sadie]

GM was facing away from her, and the fact that JW did not notice her indicates that when she walked past he was probably looking at his child, so I think she genuinely did walk post the chat, accurate testimony.

Me too.

[slartibartfast]

Sadie you and I may disagree on some details but we seem to agree very constructively that JT is a completely honest witness. Watching the video where this witness is in Rua Martins showing where the chat was, I have never seen a more straightforward and truthful witness, instantly trustable, no doubt whatsoever.

I think JT tried to be as helpful as possible, though her witness statements are not terribly coherent.

[G-Unit]

GM was facing away from her, and the fact that JW did not notice her indicates that when she walked past he was probably looking at his child, so I think she genuinely did walk post the chat, accurate testimony.

On a busier street with people coming and going perhaps, but this was quiet with no-one around. I would expect anyone to glance at the source of footsteps or movement in such a place. [ moderated ]

[misty]

On a busier street with people coming and going perhaps, but this was quiet with no-one around. I would expect anyone to glance at the source of footsteps or movement in such a place.

Would you expect someone who had consumed 3 or 4 glasses of wine to be as aware & observant as you assert in your post?

[Miss Taken Identity]

I think JT tried to be as helpful as possible, though her witness statements are not terribly coherent.

Indeed Slart, and should we wonder why?

Maddie was removed from that apartment by 4 possible means
1. she left of her own accord- awake
2. she was a willing participant with someone she knew- awake
3. she was removed unconscious by one of the Tapas Group
4. she was removed by a stranger unconscious

Not many I know contest JT's testament that she saw someone carrying Maddie BUT was it the abuctor? was it someone she did recognise removing Maddie and doesn't want to say, OR is it a tourist with his own child.
Both are possible, however it was used as a means to establish THE ABDUCTION by a stranger theory-with and eye witness.  Now that does cause suspicion for some.

It seems to fit in with the  time-lines (chose your own) OR does it?, Well NO, it doesn't because all we have are people 'thinking' it was this time or that time, leaving a small window, and I do mean tiny opportunity, for a chance burglar to jemmie open shutters,windows and run off with a sleeping child not know if that child would wake and scream or not... Nothing fits you see..nothing.

Hence SY dismiss this as nothing more than a man carrying a child from a creche?

[Admin]

Members are again reminded not to make unfounded speculations or accusations.

Admin

[Brietta]

On a busier street with people coming and going perhaps, but this was quiet with no-one around. I would expect anyone to glance at the source of footsteps or movement in such a place. [ moderated ]

How many vehicles were parked on the street?